Union claims rail passengers put at risk by five-inch gap in track

PASSENGERS on the York to London line were placed at serious risk when a five-inch gap developed in the track just south of York, a rail union claimed today.

The RMT has released this picture, which it said showed the rail having crumbled away to nothing, leaving a potentially lethal gap at Colton Junction where normal running speeds are 125mph.

The union claimed the picture was taken at the beginning of last week. “The original crack had been identified on inspection and painted blue to mark it down for repair or replacement,” it said.

“However, due to cuts it took four days to replace, in which time a crack had become a five-inch gap, leaving trains, passengers and staff at risk of a serious and potentially lethal incident.

“A train could have derailed, jumped the tracks and collided with an on-coming service.”

But Network Rail said that as soon as it knew about the crack, it stopped all trains and rectified the problem. “This was managed within all safety standards and was in no way affected by changes to staffing levels,” said route managing director Phil Verster.

“A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21.

“On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards.

“The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28. We immediately stopped all trains from travelling over the fault and the track was replaced by 19.37 that evening. Safety issues will never be compromised in the name of managing costs.

Promoted stories

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.”

The RMT said it understood there was massive pressure to keep the East Coast Main Line running from the Government as it looks to re-privatise the service.

General Secretary Bob Crow claimed: "This shocking picture highlights the reality on Britain's railways today. Staffing and inspections have been cuts in the dash to save money and there is massive pressure right from the top of Government to keep services running at all costs regardless of the potential human cost.

"This is exactly the same set of poisonous conditions that lead us to the Hatfield disaster and as this picture shows we are dicing with death and risking another major rail tragedy. RMT is demanding action before it is too late.”

Share article

An East Coast spokesman said: “Safety is our number one priority for our customers. No East Coast train services used this section of track once the track defect was spotted.

“Our trains were diverted onto alternative tracks at this four track section of the route until repairs were carried out and the line reopened in the evening.”

Promoted Stories

Comments (31)

Anyone else in York seeing structural/subsidenc e issues due to the ground being so saturated?

Anyone else in York seeing structural/subsidenc
e issues due to the ground being so saturated?Elephant

Anyone else in York seeing structural/subsidenc e issues due to the ground being so saturated?

Score: 0

again says...12:57pm Mon 3 Dec 12

It's the rail equivalent of a pothole in the road. It would hardly surprising if the railways didn't suffer in the way roads are doing.

It's the rail equivalent of a pothole in the road.
It would hardly surprising if the railways didn't suffer in the way roads are doing.again

It's the rail equivalent of a pothole in the road. It would hardly surprising if the railways didn't suffer in the way roads are doing.

Score: 0

bob the builder says...1:04pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Is this: A: bluster from a union to deflect attention from their finances as the country reflects on immoral but legal tax evasion B: having a go at the government so Labour get value for money, having won a couple of local elections - (pride comes before a fall) C: Illegal trespass to take the photograph

Is this:
A: bluster from a union to deflect attention from their finances as the country reflects on immoral but legal tax evasion
B: having a go at the government so Labour get value for money, having won a couple of local elections - (pride comes before a fall)
C: Illegal trespass to take the photographbob the builder

Is this: A: bluster from a union to deflect attention from their finances as the country reflects on immoral but legal tax evasion B: having a go at the government so Labour get value for money, having won a couple of local elections - (pride comes before a fall) C: Illegal trespass to take the photograph

Score: 0

pedalling paul says...2:20pm Mon 3 Dec 12

The point is that a weekly inspection of known defects is clearly insufficient. Was it not for the eagle eyed driver on an adjoining track, the spectre of Hatfield could so easily have returned. The Public Enquiry into the Pendolino derailment at Grayrigg scathingly noted the very limited time train-free that engineers had to inspect and repair the nuts and bolts of the railway. Commerce versus safety is a fine balance.

The point is that a weekly inspection of known defects is clearly insufficient. Was it not for the eagle eyed driver on an adjoining track, the spectre of Hatfield could so easily have returned.
The Public Enquiry into the Pendolino derailment at Grayrigg scathingly noted the very limited time train-free that engineers had to inspect and repair the nuts and bolts of the railway.
Commerce versus safety is a fine balance.pedalling paul

The point is that a weekly inspection of known defects is clearly insufficient. Was it not for the eagle eyed driver on an adjoining track, the spectre of Hatfield could so easily have returned. The Public Enquiry into the Pendolino derailment at Grayrigg scathingly noted the very limited time train-free that engineers had to inspect and repair the nuts and bolts of the railway. Commerce versus safety is a fine balance.

Score: 0

xtc says...2:46pm Mon 3 Dec 12

pedalling paul wrote…

The point is that a weekly inspection of known defects is clearly insufficient. Was it not for the eagle eyed driver on an adjoining track, the spectre of Hatfield could so easily have returned. The Public Enquiry into the Pendolino derailment at Grayrigg scathingly noted the very limited time train-free that engineers had to inspect and repair the nuts and bolts of the railway. Commerce versus safety is a fine balance.

But note the trains did nt stop at all!

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
The point is that a weekly inspection of known defects is clearly insufficient. Was it not for the eagle eyed driver on an adjoining track, the spectre of Hatfield could so easily have returned.
The Public Enquiry into the Pendolino derailment at Grayrigg scathingly noted the very limited time train-free that engineers had to inspect and repair the nuts and bolts of the railway.
Commerce versus safety is a fine balance.[/p][/quote]But note the trains did nt stop at all!xtc

pedalling paul wrote…

The point is that a weekly inspection of known defects is clearly insufficient. Was it not for the eagle eyed driver on an adjoining track, the spectre of Hatfield could so easily have returned. The Public Enquiry into the Pendolino derailment at Grayrigg scathingly noted the very limited time train-free that engineers had to inspect and repair the nuts and bolts of the railway. Commerce versus safety is a fine balance.

But note the trains did nt stop at all!

Score: 0

johnwill says...2:59pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Network Rail and the TOC,s first priority is running trains on time to avoid financial penalties, has safety again become secondary due to complacency, lack of in-house staff and the belief that inspection and monitoring can replace good maintenance regimes? I would guess the article is totally accurate.

Network Rail and the TOC,s first priority is running trains on time to avoid financial penalties, has safety again become secondary due to complacency, lack of in-house staff and the belief that inspection and monitoring can replace good maintenance regimes? I would guess the article is totally accurate.johnwill

Network Rail and the TOC,s first priority is running trains on time to avoid financial penalties, has safety again become secondary due to complacency, lack of in-house staff and the belief that inspection and monitoring can replace good maintenance regimes? I would guess the article is totally accurate.

Score: 0

Mr Happy says...3:32pm Mon 3 Dec 12

bob the builder wrote…

Is this: A: bluster from a union to deflect attention from their finances as the country reflects on immoral but legal tax evasion B: having a go at the government so Labour get value for money, having won a couple of local elections - (pride comes before a fall) C: Illegal trespass to take the photograph

What it is is pointing out a very dangerous condition. Network Rail say it was a minor crack when identified. Yet days later there's a five inch gap! This was never a minor crack. Colton is a very fast junction and this line should have been shut as soon as any crack was identified and repairs made immediately. RMT are spot on and the railway using public should back them to the hilt on this one.

[quote][p][bold]bob the builder[/bold] wrote:
Is this:
A: bluster from a union to deflect attention from their finances as the country reflects on immoral but legal tax evasion
B: having a go at the government so Labour get value for money, having won a couple of local elections - (pride comes before a fall)
C: Illegal trespass to take the photograph[/p][/quote]What it is is pointing out a very dangerous condition. Network Rail say it was a minor crack when identified. Yet days later there's a five inch gap!
This was never a minor crack. Colton is a very fast junction and this line should have been shut as soon as any crack was identified and repairs made immediately.
RMT are spot on and the railway using public should back them to the hilt on this one.Mr Happy

bob the builder wrote…

Is this: A: bluster from a union to deflect attention from their finances as the country reflects on immoral but legal tax evasion B: having a go at the government so Labour get value for money, having won a couple of local elections - (pride comes before a fall) C: Illegal trespass to take the photograph

What it is is pointing out a very dangerous condition. Network Rail say it was a minor crack when identified. Yet days later there's a five inch gap! This was never a minor crack. Colton is a very fast junction and this line should have been shut as soon as any crack was identified and repairs made immediately. RMT are spot on and the railway using public should back them to the hilt on this one.

Score: 0

sparkseffect says...3:32pm Mon 3 Dec 12

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.sparkseffect

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.

Score: 0

twoleftfeet says...4:28pm Mon 3 Dec 12

If Network Rail stopped all trains over the effected track then why the hysteria?

If Network Rail stopped all trains over the effected track then why the hysteria?twoleftfeet

If Network Rail stopped all trains over the effected track then why the hysteria?

Score: 0

johnwill says...4:29pm Mon 3 Dec 12

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.johnwill

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.

Score: 0

twoleftfeet says...4:36pm Mon 3 Dec 12

johnwill wrote…

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.

Read it again. “A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21. “On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards. “The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28. That's not 16 days. 7 days I think you'll find.

[quote][p][bold]johnwill[/bold] wrote:
The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.[/p][/quote]Read it again.
“A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21.
“On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards.
“The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28.
That's not 16 days. 7 days I think you'll find.twoleftfeet

johnwill wrote…

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.

Read it again. “A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21. “On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards. “The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28. That's not 16 days. 7 days I think you'll find.

Score: 0

Caecilius says...5:03pm Mon 3 Dec 12

sparkseffect wrote…

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.

Presumably nobody at Network Rail wanted to see a repeat of Hatfield in 2002, either - when we had the Potters Bar crash. Seven more deaths, once again caused by appallingly poor track maintenance, on their watch and less than two years after the entire network had been thrown into meltdown by Hatfield. As they were self-evidently complacent about safety so soon after the event, why should we not suspect they've relapsed into complacency again, another ten years down the line? And remember how their contractor tried to shuffle their share of the blame onto an imaginary "saboteur", who they claimed must have been fiddling around with a spanner in the middle of the ECML, in the dark, in a built up area a few hundred yards from a station (hardly the spot you'ld pick, even if you were happy to risk your life to commit such an act), loosening the bolts that in fact their employees had failed to inspect properly? On this occasion, the RMT are the voice of sanity.

[quote][p][bold]sparkseffect[/bold] wrote:
How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.[/p][/quote]Presumably nobody at Network Rail wanted to see a repeat of Hatfield in 2002, either - when we had the Potters Bar crash. Seven more deaths, once again caused by appallingly poor track maintenance, on their watch and less than two years after the entire network had been thrown into meltdown by Hatfield. As they were self-evidently complacent about safety so soon after the event, why should we not suspect they've relapsed into complacency again, another ten years down the line? And remember how their contractor tried to shuffle their share of the blame onto an imaginary "saboteur", who they claimed must have been fiddling around with a spanner in the middle of the ECML, in the dark, in a built up area a few hundred yards from a station (hardly the spot you'ld pick, even if you were happy to risk your life to commit such an act), loosening the bolts that in fact their employees had failed to inspect properly?
On this occasion, the RMT are the voice of sanity.Caecilius

sparkseffect wrote…

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.

Presumably nobody at Network Rail wanted to see a repeat of Hatfield in 2002, either - when we had the Potters Bar crash. Seven more deaths, once again caused by appallingly poor track maintenance, on their watch and less than two years after the entire network had been thrown into meltdown by Hatfield. As they were self-evidently complacent about safety so soon after the event, why should we not suspect they've relapsed into complacency again, another ten years down the line? And remember how their contractor tried to shuffle their share of the blame onto an imaginary "saboteur", who they claimed must have been fiddling around with a spanner in the middle of the ECML, in the dark, in a built up area a few hundred yards from a station (hardly the spot you'ld pick, even if you were happy to risk your life to commit such an act), loosening the bolts that in fact their employees had failed to inspect properly? On this occasion, the RMT are the voice of sanity.

Score: 0

Mr Happy says...5:21pm Mon 3 Dec 12

sparkseffect wrote…

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.

I'm sorry but a cracked rail on a junction as fast as Colton is so serious that trains should be stopped from going over that section of track BEFORE it develops into a break. Once there is a break it could be too late!

[quote][p][bold]sparkseffect[/bold] wrote:
How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but a cracked rail on a junction as fast as Colton is so serious that trains should be stopped from going over that section of track BEFORE it develops into a break. Once there is a break it could be too late!Mr Happy

sparkseffect wrote…

How typical of the troublemakers at the RMT to try to make political capital out of this - putting fears about safety into the minds of potential passengers will put the RMT's own members out of work. Yes, a cracked rail is serious and, if it develops into a break, trains should be stopped - as they were. No doubt the RMT would like to go back to the days of lengthmen patrolling the line, but that's a nonsense on a 125mph railway. Network Rail may have a lot of faults, but nobody there wants to see a repeat of Hatfield.

I'm sorry but a cracked rail on a junction as fast as Colton is so serious that trains should be stopped from going over that section of track BEFORE it develops into a break. Once there is a break it could be too late!

Score: 0

long distance depressive says...5:26pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Union leaders saying that their members dabbed a bit of paint of it..well that's OK then, didn't any of their members get in involved after that point?

Union leaders saying that their members dabbed a bit of paint of it..well that's OK then, didn't any of their members get in involved after that point?long distance depressive

Union leaders saying that their members dabbed a bit of paint of it..well that's OK then, didn't any of their members get in involved after that point?

Score: 0

johnwill says...5:47pm Mon 3 Dec 12

twoleftfeet wrote…

johnwill wrote…

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.

Read it again. “A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21. “On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards. “The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28. That's not 16 days. 7 days I think you'll find.

I think you will find from the defect being found by the monitoring train to a train driver seeing the break and a proper repair being done is 16 days. That is my point.

[quote][p][bold]twoleftfeet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]johnwill[/bold] wrote:
The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.[/p][/quote]Read it again.
“A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21.
“On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards.
“The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28.
That's not 16 days. 7 days I think you'll find.[/p][/quote]I think you will find from the defect being found by the monitoring train to a train driver seeing the break and a proper repair being done is 16 days.
That is my point.johnwill

twoleftfeet wrote…

johnwill wrote…

The most alarming point is, and these are Network Rails words, the break was identified and reported by a TRAIN DRIVER 16 days after the defect was found.

Read it again. “A minor defect in the rail – not a crack - was picked up by our monitoring train on November 12. A rail replacement was scheduled for December 9 and the defect was maintained on November 21. “On November 21, there was no crack in the rail. Weekly inspections of this defect were completed. This is fully compliant with best practice and industry standards. “The rail deteriorated which was identified by a train driver on the neighbouring line at 12.01 on Wednesday November 28. That's not 16 days. 7 days I think you'll find.

I think you will find from the defect being found by the monitoring train to a train driver seeing the break and a proper repair being done is 16 days. That is my point.

Score: 0

nearlyman says...6:48pm Mon 3 Dec 12

The union will have probably had 8 people standing around whilst 1 took the photo.

The union will have probably had 8 people standing around whilst 1 took the photo.nearlyman

The union will have probably had 8 people standing around whilst 1 took the photo.

Score: 0

old_geezer says...7:39pm Mon 3 Dec 12

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.”
It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards.
nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?old_geezer

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?

Score: 0

pedalling paul says...8:31pm Mon 3 Dec 12

The story has gone national now, and is on the BBC news webpage for England. But seeminly of less importance than the royal pregnancy.

The story has gone national now, and is on the BBC news webpage for England.
But seeminly of less importance than the royal pregnancy.pedalling paul

The story has gone national now, and is on the BBC news webpage for England. But seeminly of less importance than the royal pregnancy.

Score: 0

twoleftfeet says...8:45pm Mon 3 Dec 12

old_geezer wrote…

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?

Do you know what Network Rails standards are? How do you know they are poor? I certainly don't.

[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote:
“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.”
It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards.
nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?[/p][/quote]Do you know what Network Rails standards are? How do you know they are poor?
I certainly don't.twoleftfeet

old_geezer wrote…

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?

Do you know what Network Rails standards are? How do you know they are poor? I certainly don't.

Score: 0

Guy Fawkes says...8:54pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Yawn. The union are going to claim that even so much as a feather on the line is creates the imminent danger of a disaster on the scale that would make the Tay Bridge collapse look like nothing more than a dented no-claims bonus, and that this danger can only be removed by 250 of its members spending several days fixing the defect, all of them on triple overtime rates. The management, on the other hand, will claim that even if the rails are rusted to buggery and held together with gaffer tape, there's nothing to worry about. The truth, as always, will lie somewhere between the two.

Yawn. The union are going to claim that even so much as a feather on the line is creates the imminent danger of a disaster on the scale that would make the Tay Bridge collapse look like nothing more than a dented no-claims bonus, and that this danger can only be removed by 250 of its members spending several days fixing the defect, all of them on triple overtime rates. The management, on the other hand, will claim that even if the rails are rusted to buggery and held together with gaffer tape, there's nothing to worry about. The truth, as always, will lie somewhere between the two.Guy Fawkes

Yawn. The union are going to claim that even so much as a feather on the line is creates the imminent danger of a disaster on the scale that would make the Tay Bridge collapse look like nothing more than a dented no-claims bonus, and that this danger can only be removed by 250 of its members spending several days fixing the defect, all of them on triple overtime rates. The management, on the other hand, will claim that even if the rails are rusted to buggery and held together with gaffer tape, there's nothing to worry about. The truth, as always, will lie somewhere between the two.

Score: 0

jumbojet says...12:07am Tue 4 Dec 12

Guy Fawkes you are just about spot on. What worries me is the state of that rail from the photograph, that is serious stuff, and not to be taken lightly. As an aviator I live with checks and more checks, and I know for sure that within the aero industry, something as dangerous as that would not have been allowed, 'things' would have been done at the 'blue paint' stage. I am a bad train traveller, especially after the West Coast accident, and at 125 mph I do not enjoy my cup of tea, and the passing of another train gives me a serious wake up call. This will not help, I fear we are into incompetence and blame culture again.

Guy Fawkes you are just about spot on. What worries me is the state of that rail from the photograph, that is serious stuff, and not to be taken lightly. As an aviator I live with checks and more checks, and I know for sure that within the aero industry, something as dangerous as that would not have been allowed, 'things' would have been done at the 'blue paint' stage. I am a bad train traveller, especially after the West Coast accident, and at 125 mph I do not enjoy my cup of tea, and the passing of another train gives me a serious wake up call. This will not help, I fear we are into incompetence and blame culture again.jumbojet

Guy Fawkes you are just about spot on. What worries me is the state of that rail from the photograph, that is serious stuff, and not to be taken lightly. As an aviator I live with checks and more checks, and I know for sure that within the aero industry, something as dangerous as that would not have been allowed, 'things' would have been done at the 'blue paint' stage. I am a bad train traveller, especially after the West Coast accident, and at 125 mph I do not enjoy my cup of tea, and the passing of another train gives me a serious wake up call. This will not help, I fear we are into incompetence and blame culture again.

Score: 0

redbluelion says...6:57am Tue 4 Dec 12

nearlyman wrote…

The union will have probably had 8 people standing around whilst 1 took the photo.

nice photo.

[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote:
The union will have probably had 8 people standing around whilst 1 took the photo.[/p][/quote]nice photo.redbluelion

nearlyman wrote…

The union will have probably had 8 people standing around whilst 1 took the photo.

Worrying: the fact that a "minor defect in the rail" can degrade to a break within the response time that Network Rail reckons is OK for a fault of that type. Terrifying: the fact that Network Rail seems so unbothered about this. They were lucky - someone spotted the break from another track before it caused a disaster. An appropriate reaction would be a heavyweight enquiry in how something classified as "minor" can deteriorate so far so fast: there must be something wrong with the initial classification, or in the response time they allow themselves. But Network Rail seem to have fooled themselves in deciding that because nobody got hurt, all is OK. The strong safety record of the railways is thanks to a culture that has, over the years, taken near-misses very seriously. It seems that this approach no longer applies. Chilling.

Worrying: the fact that a "minor defect in the rail" can degrade to a break within the response time that Network Rail reckons is OK for a fault of that type.
Terrifying: the fact that Network Rail seems so unbothered about this. They were lucky - someone spotted the break from another track before it caused a disaster. An appropriate reaction would be a heavyweight enquiry in how something classified as "minor" can deteriorate so far so fast: there must be something wrong with the initial classification, or in the response time they allow themselves.
But Network Rail seem to have fooled themselves in deciding that because nobody got hurt, all is OK. The strong safety record of the railways is thanks to a culture that has, over the years, taken near-misses very seriously. It seems that this approach no longer applies. Chilling.TheManOnThe172Bus

Worrying: the fact that a "minor defect in the rail" can degrade to a break within the response time that Network Rail reckons is OK for a fault of that type. Terrifying: the fact that Network Rail seems so unbothered about this. They were lucky - someone spotted the break from another track before it caused a disaster. An appropriate reaction would be a heavyweight enquiry in how something classified as "minor" can deteriorate so far so fast: there must be something wrong with the initial classification, or in the response time they allow themselves. But Network Rail seem to have fooled themselves in deciding that because nobody got hurt, all is OK. The strong safety record of the railways is thanks to a culture that has, over the years, taken near-misses very seriously. It seems that this approach no longer applies. Chilling.

Score: 0

nearlyman says...9:41am Tue 4 Dec 12

Where is Corporal Jones ? Report it to Captain Mainwaring!!

Where is Corporal Jones ? Report it to Captain Mainwaring!!nearlyman

Where is Corporal Jones ? Report it to Captain Mainwaring!!

Score: 0

PKH says...10:01am Tue 4 Dec 12

TheManOnThe172Bus wrote…

Worrying: the fact that a "minor defect in the rail" can degrade to a break within the response time that Network Rail reckons is OK for a fault of that type. Terrifying: the fact that Network Rail seems so unbothered about this. They were lucky - someone spotted the break from another track before it caused a disaster. An appropriate reaction would be a heavyweight enquiry in how something classified as "minor" can deteriorate so far so fast: there must be something wrong with the initial classification, or in the response time they allow themselves. But Network Rail seem to have fooled themselves in deciding that because nobody got hurt, all is OK. The strong safety record of the railways is thanks to a culture that has, over the years, taken near-misses very seriously. It seems that this approach no longer applies. Chilling.

Rails are welded together under tension to stop them buckling in hot weather (expansion), it is therefore not surprising given the cold weather (rail contraction) that a crack soon becomes a gap. Network Rail maintenance bosses should have been aware of this and scheduled the work to be done ASAP not weeks later, this is sheer negligence on their part.

[quote][p][bold]TheManOnThe172Bus[/bold] wrote:
Worrying: the fact that a "minor defect in the rail" can degrade to a break within the response time that Network Rail reckons is OK for a fault of that type.
Terrifying: the fact that Network Rail seems so unbothered about this. They were lucky - someone spotted the break from another track before it caused a disaster. An appropriate reaction would be a heavyweight enquiry in how something classified as "minor" can deteriorate so far so fast: there must be something wrong with the initial classification, or in the response time they allow themselves.
But Network Rail seem to have fooled themselves in deciding that because nobody got hurt, all is OK. The strong safety record of the railways is thanks to a culture that has, over the years, taken near-misses very seriously. It seems that this approach no longer applies. Chilling.[/p][/quote]Rails are welded together under tension to stop them buckling in hot weather (expansion), it is therefore not surprising given the cold weather (rail contraction) that a crack soon becomes a gap. Network Rail maintenance bosses should have been aware of this and scheduled the work to be done ASAP not weeks later, this is sheer negligence on their part.PKH

TheManOnThe172Bus wrote…

Worrying: the fact that a "minor defect in the rail" can degrade to a break within the response time that Network Rail reckons is OK for a fault of that type. Terrifying: the fact that Network Rail seems so unbothered about this. They were lucky - someone spotted the break from another track before it caused a disaster. An appropriate reaction would be a heavyweight enquiry in how something classified as "minor" can deteriorate so far so fast: there must be something wrong with the initial classification, or in the response time they allow themselves. But Network Rail seem to have fooled themselves in deciding that because nobody got hurt, all is OK. The strong safety record of the railways is thanks to a culture that has, over the years, taken near-misses very seriously. It seems that this approach no longer applies. Chilling.

Rails are welded together under tension to stop them buckling in hot weather (expansion), it is therefore not surprising given the cold weather (rail contraction) that a crack soon becomes a gap. Network Rail maintenance bosses should have been aware of this and scheduled the work to be done ASAP not weeks later, this is sheer negligence on their part.

Score: 0

old_geezer says...10:56am Tue 4 Dec 12

twoleftfeet wrote…

old_geezer wrote…

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?

Do you know what Network Rails standards are? How do you know they are poor? I certainly don't.

Of course, I'm not a rail engineer. NR's account, however, reveals that either their standards aren't adequate (my guess), or weren't adhered to. One or t'other.

[quote][p][bold]twoleftfeet[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: “As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?[/p][/quote]Do you know what Network Rails standards are? How do you know they are poor? I certainly don't.[/p][/quote]Of course, I'm not a rail engineer. NR's account, however, reveals that either their standards aren't adequate (my guess), or weren't adhered to. One or t'other.old_geezer

twoleftfeet wrote…

old_geezer wrote…

“As this incident illustrates, all reports from drivers are investigated and action taken as appropriate.” It shouldn't have waited until then. NR's own explanation reveals poor standards. nearlyman: weird comment! We don't know, and if we did - and even if it were 8, vastly unlikely - so what?

Do you know what Network Rails standards are? How do you know they are poor? I certainly don't.

Of course, I'm not a rail engineer. NR's account, however, reveals that either their standards aren't adequate (my guess), or weren't adhered to. One or t'other.

Score: 0

rattydriver says...12:59pm Tue 4 Dec 12

Rail head is not shiny enough to be a main line rail, if trains were going over that part of track at regular times at speed then the rail would be cleaner

Rail head is not shiny enough to be a main line rail, if trains were going over that part of track at regular times at speed then the rail would be cleanerrattydriver

Rail head is not shiny enough to be a main line rail, if trains were going over that part of track at regular times at speed then the rail would be cleaner

Score: 0

sheps lad says...2:32pm Tue 4 Dec 12

PKH is correct ,this appears to be a defective weld rather than a rail fracturing.

PKH is correct ,this appears to be a defective weld rather than a rail fracturing.sheps lad

PKH is correct ,this appears to be a defective weld rather than a rail fracturing.

Score: 0

jumbojet says...5:38pm Tue 4 Dec 12

I must have a different picture to you 'Rattydriver', it is very shiny and the only bit that's not is a 5inch gap where some rail should be. 'Themanonthe172 bus', you have it spot on, how many more events like this have happened, how bad is that track from here to London Kings Cross, thank you Press for giving us this information. Free Press. Yes.

I must have a different picture to you 'Rattydriver', it is very shiny and the only bit that's not is a 5inch gap where some rail should be. 'Themanonthe172 bus', you have it spot on, how many more events like this have happened, how bad is that track from here to London Kings Cross, thank you Press for giving us this information. Free Press. Yes.jumbojet

I must have a different picture to you 'Rattydriver', it is very shiny and the only bit that's not is a 5inch gap where some rail should be. 'Themanonthe172 bus', you have it spot on, how many more events like this have happened, how bad is that track from here to London Kings Cross, thank you Press for giving us this information. Free Press. Yes.

Score: 0

Ignatius Lumpopo says...12:28pm Fri 7 Dec 12

I'm confused. Is this the break at Copmanthorpe (brought to the attention of The Press by a local reader) or another at Colton, three miles south? The Copmanthorpe fracture appeared to be by redundant bolt holes on a piece of continuous welded rail: this has bolts through it. Is the RMT photo of the same site as the initial one in the Press? It doesn't look like it.

I'm confused. Is this the break at Copmanthorpe (brought to the attention of The Press by a local reader) or another at Colton, three miles south? The Copmanthorpe fracture appeared to be by redundant bolt holes on a piece of continuous welded rail: this has bolts through it. Is the RMT photo of the same site as the initial one in the Press? It doesn't look like it.Ignatius Lumpopo

I'm confused. Is this the break at Copmanthorpe (brought to the attention of The Press by a local reader) or another at Colton, three miles south? The Copmanthorpe fracture appeared to be by redundant bolt holes on a piece of continuous welded rail: this has bolts through it. Is the RMT photo of the same site as the initial one in the Press? It doesn't look like it.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here